While the Interim Constitution has declared Nepal a Federal Democratic Republic following the abolition of monarchy by the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly in May 2008, political parties of the country have yet to reach an agreement on an acceptable model for the federal system or structure under the new constitution. Hari Bansh Jha observes:” The main agenda of the 601-member CA has been to draft and finalize federal constitution. By and large, the people voted to power only those political parties which adopted federalism as one of its basic agendas. However, the political parties in CA are still divided about the criteria for constituting the federal units, number of federal units to be formed and division of power between the centre and states.

 The deadline set by the Committee for the Restructuring of State and Devolution of State Power of the Constituent Assembly for submission of concept papers on federalism ended on September 16 this year. The key coalition partners – Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML failed to meet the deadline in submitting their concept papers to the Committee.

Sushil Koirala, acting President of the NC, clarifying his party’s stand has stated that his party would not finalise in haste its draft proposal on federalism and that the future federal structure of the country would have to take into consideration several variables, such as geographical boundary, language, culture, ethnicity and, above all, financial viability of the proposed federal unit. While the NC, thus, continues to discuss its draft report on federalism, the CPN-UML, only a day before the deadline, finalized, at its standing committee meeting, the modality of federalism by proposing 15 provinces to be enshrined in the new constitution. The proposed six provinces on geographical basis are: Birat, Sunkoshi, Gandaki, Lumbini, Khaptad and Karnali. There will be 7 ethnicity-based provinces, namely, Newa, Magarat, Tamuwan, Tamshaling, Tharuhat, Limbuwan and Kirat. Mithila and Bhojpura states will be created on linguistic basis. The UML proposal also envisages, apart from provinces, three special structures, namely, the autonomous regions, protected areas and special areas.

The Maoist proposal, already before the CA, consists of nine Autonomous regions, six of which are based on ethnicity and three on territoriality. Following are the proposed ethnicity-based autonomous regions: Kirat, Tamang Saling, Tamuwan (Gurung), Newar, Magrat, and Tharuwan. The three territorial regions are: Madhesh, Bheri-Karnali and Seti-Mahakali Autonomous Regions. Under the Maoist plan, the autonomous regions would exercise control over areas and activities such as local land, forest, mountain, tourism, public land, religious places, rivers, lakes, minerals, agro-based small and mid-sized industries, inter-regional trade, local internal security, education, literature, language, culture and communication. Nevertheless, the people’s army, foreign relations, finance, currency, international trade, large scale industries and big hydro electric projects are excluded from the jurisdiction of the autonomous regions. The Maoist proposal suggests representation of all communities in the local state power on a proportional basis in case there are areas with mixed communities. Special treatment would be meted out to Karnali and Seti-Mahakali regions by granting them regional autonomy in view of prolonged oppression and backwardness to which these regions have been subjected. There is also provision in the proposal for separate autonomous regions for the Tarai (Madhesh), although the number of regions earmarked for the Tarai has not been specified.

Nepal, as we are all aware, is passing through a transitional phase, and the transition from unitary to federal structure, from centralized to decentralized administration is not going to be so smooth as one would expect. A major English daily of the country has regarded, in its recent editorial, the issue of restructuring the state as ‘the most difficult to resolve.’This is, indeed, one of the most sensitive aspects of the new constitution. It is not yet clear how the coalition partners and other ‘fringe’ parties represented in the CA would react to the Maoist proposal. The proposal further envisages some regions as centrally administered. This has provoked debate among the stakeholders on the ground that the idea of creating centrally administered units does not conform to the concept of federalism. A decision has, however, been made to ‘provide the right of self-determination’ in the next constitution, outright rejecting the ‘right of secession’. Based on the report submitted by a five-member panel led by Unified CPN (Maoist) CA member Hitman Shakya, the CA Committee for Restructuring of the State and Devolution of State Power has defined the right to self-determination as ‘the right to use the natural and other resources in a certain area and utilize it for the economic development of the area, and has decided to give autonomy to the federal units for the same’.

The Report further adds: ‘States and regions under special structures of the federal units can exercise autonomy and right to self-determination on political and cultural matters, religion, education, information, communication, health, housing, employment, social welfare, economic activities, commerce, land and resource management, environment and financing these autonomous functions within the limits of the constitution and the federal laws’. The federal units, while exercising their right to self-determination, are constitutionally forbidden to undermine or tamper with the country’s sovereignty, autonomy, independence, unity and territorial integrity.

The same English daily mentioned above, while welcoming the decision on the right of self-determination as a ‘heartening’ development, hastens to add that ‘the provision of self-determination is vague and open to multiple interpretations.’ Besides, conflict becomes inevitable if the Centre-State relations in terms of the exercise of powers are not properly defined. Finally, nobody would dispute the honest advice to Nilambar Acharya, the newly elected Chairman of the Constitutional Committee, that he should ‘take the initiative and urge all of its members-leading members of the political parties – to get engaged seriously.’

The issue of federalism has already elicited conflicting views, comments and reactions.

Some politicians are opposed to the idea on the ground that it would ultimately lead to disintegration of the country. NC supremo and former Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala recently vowed at a public meeting not to allow ‘disintegration of the country in the name of federalism’ and he categorically stated that such disintegration could take place ‘over his dead body’. Narahari Acharya, a NC stalwart, disagrees with Koirala and dismisses his remarks ‘as purely personal’. Acharya told the media that Koirala was unaware of the NC Central Working Committee (CWC)’s decision to adopt the federal system. He categorically stated, ‘The Party President cannot interfere in the Central Committee’s decision.’

As the time for finalizing the draft of the new constitution is drawing near, several organizations representing various ethnic and indigenous communities have resorted to pressure tactics, such as bandhs and strikes affecting normal life in various districts outside Kathmandu valley. This is a disturbing phenomenon as it not only poses a threat to the already fragile law and order situation but would also disrupt developmental activities.

The ethnic fronts have formed a Joint Struggle Committee composed of Tamsaling Swayatta Rajya Parishad, Sanghiya Limbuwan Rajya Parishad, Khumbuwan Swayatta Rajya Parishad, Tharuhat Samyukta Sangharsha Samiti, Magar Hang Parishad, Dalit Community and Muslim Rastriya Sangharsha Samiti.  They have called the strike demanding implementation of past agreements with the government as well as an assurance of federal autonomous states based on ‘ethnicity with rights of self-decision’. The agitators have also demanded a provision for caste-based proportional representation in all government agencies at all levels and the implementation of ILO Declaration 169.

Apart from federalism which is decidedly one of the most sensitive and ticklish issues to be tackled by the new constitution, security remains a major issue of national interest and concern to the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal sandwiched between India and China, the two most populous Asian giants. The insurgency over, there has been considerable improvement in the overall security or law and order situation. But people continue to feel insecure in several parts of the country, particularly in the Tarai, close to the bordering cities of India, where armed groups are actively engaged in intimidating and terrorizing the local population. Dharmendra Jha, President, Federation of Nepali Journalists observes: “Last year, abductions, threats, mental and physical tortures leading eventual death of those on the receiving end became a routine incident. The government, instead of taking action against the guilty, allowed them to find shelter under the aegis of political parties.”

There are media reports that police have arrested at least four leaders of Nepal Defence Army (NDA), including its chairman RP Mainali in possession of arms. NDA is reportedly a Hindu extremist organization which has been accused of bombing churches, mosques and various other places across the country. Likewise, the Indian police are reported to have confiscated arms of the CPN (Maoist) led by the Matrika Yadav faction being transported across the border into Nepalese territory. The Yadav faction, as reported in the press, has ‘decided to forge working unity with some Tarai armed groups, including the Madheshi Rastriya Mukti Morcha led by Jayakrishna Goit’. Yadav is vehemently opposed to the government’s recently implemented special security plan which is described by him as a conspiracy to suppress the voices of the people in the Tarai and that ‘the plan was brought to loot the Madhesh.’

Cross-border movement of armed terrorist groups has caused concern to the security personnel of both India and Nepal. Since open border is a unique feature of Nepal-India relations, government officials of both Nepal and India are aware of the misuse of the open border by some criminal and anti-social elements and have realized the urgency of curbing such undesirable activities to ensure peace and security in the border areas. Experts have pointed out that border patrolling is not enough and that some effective measures for regulating the movement of people across the border on both sides are urgently called for.

During a recent visit to Nepal, India’s foreign secretary Nirupamo Rao informed at a press conference before her departure from Kathmandu that the Home Secretary level talk between the two countries has been scheduled for November 6-7 this year in Kathmandu during which ‘the entire gamut of bilateral security issues’ would be discussed. India has complained to Nepal that the latter’s land has been used for anti-India activities. Rao said, ‘I reiterated India’s security concerns and the use of Nepalese territory for anti-India activities.’ Nepal has also reiterated its commitment to India that such activities will not be allowed from Nepalese territory.

No less concerned about anti-China activities in Nepal is the country’s northern neighbor China. To prevent Tibetan exiles’ growing involvement in anti-China activities from Nepalese soil and free movement of these refugees, China is reported to have ‘pledged to provide training, logistic and technical support for border security forces to control illegal activities along the border’. Foreign Minister Sujata Koirala, during her recent visit to China, not only reaffirmed the country’s consistently upheld stand on ‘one China’ policy, including recognition of Tibet as an integral part of China but also reassured the Chinese side that Nepal would not allow its territory to be used against China. There are reports that the government of Nepal has already sent two Armed Police Force (APF) teams for long range patrol as part of its plan to deploy border security forces at key border entry points along the Nepal-China border.

While Nepal expects its two immediate and powerful neighbors India and China to understand the vulnerability of a small country and respect its independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, it is in the national interest of Nepal to become sensitive to the security concerns of its big neighbors and take appropriate measures to prevent and curb all kinds of hostile operations against them. In this context, it is pertinent to quote Late Prof. Y.N. Khanal:

‘What needs to be better realized is that both India and China, treaty or no treaty, have differently their vital national interest in Nepal. Our foreign policy, thought out hard and conducted in total concrete awareness of this reality, can be creative. In other words, nobody, however friendly, can think for us about our relations with India and China and the sensitive balance implied in it. Our relations with India and China always difficult and taking even a more difficult turn in the nuclear age, have been more complicated today by politicians of loose thinking and loose tongue. Their pronouncements bear no relation to their performance.’

Judged from a regional perspective, the inability of the state in most developing countries, including Nepal to govern, and its failure to deliver the basic services needed to ensure human security or to guarantee the security of the people by maintaining law and order has been recognized. It is indeed ironic that in managing domestic chaos or internal conflicts, the state has come to rely increasingly on security forces. P.R. Chari has rightly observed that a militaristic approach to security is not enough, as the locus of conflict has shifted from the external to the internal dimension, with a corresponding change in focus from security through armaments to security through human development. The non-military paradigm, as Chari points out, encompasses within its fold wide-ranging threats, such as ‘cross-border movements of population, ethno-political, socio-economic and communal, religious politics, terrorism with its seminal linkages to money-laundering operations, and drugs / arms smuggling, environmental degradation spawning its related problem of deforestation and desertification, internal migration and chaotic urbanization.’

Paper presented by the author at a CSAS/KAF Seminar held in Kathmandu, October 21, 2009.

Comments (2)

Thank you

Commented by Dawa sango lama - December 18, 2009 @ 8:10 AM

Dr.Lohani,you are a scholar and I do not need to say anything against your idea which you have presented in your logical way.Simply to you and others one fact I like to remind that monarchy in real legal term has not been aboloshed.You and other may ask me how?Besised the popularity of monarchy in this country, the legal point I wish to point out is-it was said and written that the fist assembly shall abolish the absolute monarchy,I repeat the absolute monarchy, that you abolished but not a simple ceremonial monarchy which the spirit of letter says to retain and the members blindly cushed the desire of letters and did just opposite.So absolute monarchy no, ok , but monarchy yes what they wanted and want today.otherwise they would have said 'abolish complete monarchy' not 'absolute monarchy' to be abolished.Therefore the monarchy still is not abolished it is there legally.There is gross mistake in adoption and it must be revised and say monarchy is there.Thats all.Keeping this institution ,bring new changes what the people wish .

Commented by chankya - November 24, 2009 @ 11:21 AM

Post Your Comment

* Name
* E-Mail
*
* Security code
* Comment